Authorities tout success of Project Ceasefire in KC

The Kansas City Star ^ | Dec. 25, 2004 | MARK MORRIS

[neverdem]

Program aims to cut crime by disarming convicted felons

Kansas City law enforcement closed 2004 by announcing that more than 700 defendants had been charged since 1999 under Project Ceasefire, a program that penalizes illegal firearm possession.

Though the program is best known for ensnaring felons who illegally possess firearms, it also has snagged felons who simply possessed ammunition and offenders who had weapons while violating court orders of protection.

U.S. Attorney Todd Graves said that gun violations will continue to be a top concern for his office.

“Our focus remains on prosecuting repeat offenders who make the decision to illegally possess firearms,” Graves said. “Since being sworn in as U.S. attorney, prosecuting anti-gun crime cases has been one of my top priorities for the simple reason that removing guns from the hands of felons reduces the likelihood they will commit additional violent crimes down the road.”

In 2004, Project Ceasefire charged 169 defendants, convicted 144 and sentenced 154, according to the U.S. attorney's office.

Launched as Project Felon in 1999 during the Clinton administration, Project Ceasefire includes federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, including the Kansas City Crime Commission, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and the Kansas City Police Department. The program is part of the national Project Safe Neighborhoods program and goes after persons who unlawfully use or possess firearms.

Charges are brought in federal court because sentences there are typically far longer than those in the state system.

With no parole in the federal criminal system, defendants are assured of serving at least 85 percent of their sentences.

Since 1999, Project Ceasefire prosecutors have filed federal charges against at least 705 defendants, accusing them of illegally possessing firearms or ammunition. That's an average of about 140 cases a year.

More than 600 have been convicted, the vast majority through guilty pleas. Thirty defendants were convicted at trial. A total of 543 defendants have been sentenced, and 58 are awaiting sentences. Since the program's inception, defendants have been sentenced to more than 2,300 years in prison.

Researchers at the University of Missouri-Kansas City have said the program has had a measurable impact on area crime rates. A recent survey of area parolees found that 91 percent were aware of Project Ceasefire and said it would influence their tendency to carry guns in the future.

To reach Mark Morris,

federal courts reporter,

call (816) 234-4310 or send e-mail to mmorris@kcstar.com.

[neverdem]

it also has snagged felons who simply possessed ammunition and offenders who had weapons while violating court orders of protection.

This crap looks less and less constitutional as time goes on. Maybe getting the NRA to repeal a mistake is harder than getting legislature to do so.

[sinanju]

It's the "Court Orders of Protection" part that gets me going. That's the same thing as "Restraining Order," yes?
And restraining orders are SOP in divorce battles, right?

[konaice]

I agree, this is the second story in as many days where it is clear that any pissed off girlfriend / wife can revoke your second ammendment rights by simply seeking a restraining order.

[neverdem]

That's the same thing as "Restraining Order," yes?

Unconstitutional restraining orders, exactly, but the Supreme Court doesn't have the gonads to tackle the issue from a Bill of Rights perspective. The Lautenberg(sp?) amendment violates the ex post facto provision and any notion of due process.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

"Program aims to cut crime by disarming convicted felons"

Brilliant! Our study of Islamic Sharia law is paying off. Severing hands, or dis-arming convicts will definitely cut crime. With no arms, un-rehabilitated felons can't hold guns, knives or blunt objects, so crime rates will surely drop like a sandbag. The only problem is to keep leg-irons on while they're on parole, because we don't want any kickboxer gangs terrorizing our streets!

/Roseanne Roseannadanna mode OFF, I suppose....but give it a CHANCE!

[neverdem]

And restraining orders are SOP in divorce battles, right?

I think it depends on how outrageous the lawyer will claim. They get a piece of the settlement, no?

[sinanju]

Unconstitutional restraining orders, exactly, but the Supreme Court doesn't have the gonads to tackle the issue from a Bill of Rights perspective. The Lautenberg(sp?) amendment violates the ex post facto provision and any notion of due process.

Then perhaps its' high time the NRA and their allies and legal eagles (as opposed to Eddie Eagles) put together a test case and mount a mighty challenge. If not for the restraining order element I'd say the old "Project Exile" is a howling success. The question is how many of these convictions are of the nature we're worried about. I believe there was one well-publicised one in Texas back in '97?

[Condor51]

The question is how many of these convictions are of the nature we're worried about. I believe there was one well-publicised one in Texas back in '97?

Yep, that one was a doozy, but it was 1999. It was in Texas, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. It was about a husband, a restraining order, and his gun. (United States v. Emerson)

In short, the guy didn't know one was issued against him and in the meantime he came in contact with the police (can't remember why). Federal charges were filed and he fought it - and won.

The GOOD THING was the the Justices verbally 'bitch-slapped' Clinton's federal prosecutor who naturally argued that 2nd Amendment was a 'state right' not an individual one. The court ruled, uh-uh sorry - the 2nd Amendment was an INDIVIDUAL right.

And a couple of the justices said (here's the bitch-slap) to Clinton's prosecutor (paraphrasing), "Son, your state right position won't fly as 'we' (us judges) own enough guns to arm a small country." The prosecutor was dumbfounded.

(Note, I'm saying "Clinton's" Prosecutor, not the US Government's)

[looscnnn]

That is correct, they are the same. ROs are SOP in many places when there is a divorce.

[looscnnn]

Problem is that on October 17, 2001, the Fifth Circuit reversed the trial court's ruling and remanded the case to the trial court. The Fifth Circuit reinstated the charges against Timothy Joe Emerson for illegal possession of a firearm and upheld as constitutionally valid the law prohibiting Emerson from possessing a firearm. Emerson filed both a petition for rehearing and for rehearing en banc on November 13, 2001. The Fifth Circuit denied these on November 30, 2001. On February 26, 2002, Emerson petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. From there I have not been able to find anything.